N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TAM M Y W ILHITE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. PAUL LITTLELIGHT; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 21-35693 D.C . Nos. 1:19-c v-00020-SPW -TJC 1:19-c v-00102-SPW -TJC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 9, 2022 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, M c KEOW N, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED AUG 11 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. SeeF ed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).De fe nda nts a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir pe tition for Fe de ra l Tort C la i m s Ac t (“ FTC A” ) c e rtific ation pursua nt to theW e stfa l l Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 2679(b)(1). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Se e Osborn v
. Hale y , 549 U.S. 225, 238 (2007) (sta ting tha t c e rtific ation de nia ls a

re re vie wa

ble ). W e a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c tua l a

nd proc e dura l history of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . 1 I The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d De fe nda

nts’ pe tition for FTC A c ourse an d
sc ope -of-e m

p loy m e nt c e rtific ation a

nd substitution of the

Unite d State s a s a

pa rty be c a use the FTC A pre c lude s suc h c e rtific ation for fe de ra l sta tutory c l a im s. The FTC A pre se rve d suits a ga inst individua l fe de ra l e m

ploy e e s for viola

tions of fe de ra l sta

tute s tha t a uthoriz e re c ove ry

a ga i nst a gove rnm e nt e m

ploy e e . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2679(b)(2)(B ); Unite d State s v . Smith , 499 U.S. 160, 166–67 (1991) (disc ussing Se c tion 2679(b)(2)’ s “ e xpre ss pre s e rvation[] ” of lia bility). In this suit, W ilhitea lle ge d a

c ivil c l a im

a ga inst theDe fe nda

nts for a lle ge d viola

tions of the R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a

n d C orrupt Orga

niz ations Ac t (“ R IC O” ), 18 U.S.C . § 1964. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t RIC O c la im s a ga inst individua ls

1 W e grant De fe nda

nts’ m otion for judic ia l notic e . Dkt. 12.

2c onstitute

c la im s tha

t a re “ othe rwise a

uthoriz e d” by

fe de ra l sta

tute s, a nd thus a re e xc lude d from the FTC A c e rtific ation a nd substitution proc e d

ure . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2679(b)(2)(B ). The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion ove r W i lhite ’ s RIC O c la im s unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331. II The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to c onstrue W ilhite ’ s RIC O c la im
a s a c om m on-la w wrongful-disc ha

rge c la i m . As the m a gistra te judge c orre c tly obse rve d, the re is no “ a

uthority for the proposition tha

t the C ourt m ay

re c a st a fe de ra l sta

tutory c a use of a c tion a s one sounding in tort in orde r to e x te nd W e stfa ll Ac t im m unity for the c l a im .” The re is nothing in the FTC A to support the proposition, a

nd we have he ld tha

t we m ust “ stric t ly

c onstru[e ] ” the FTC A so a s not to “ e nla

rge [it] be y o n d wha

t the sta t ute re quire s.” F.D.I.C

. v . C raft , 157 F.3d 697, 707 (9th C ir. 1998). The distric t c ourt did not err in tre ating W ilhite ’ s fa c tua l a lle gations a s true whe n de te rm ining its subje c t-m atte r jurisdic t ion. Bibe au v . Pac
. N w . Rsc h . Found
. , Inc
. , 339 F.3d 942, 944 (9th C ir. 2003) (a c c e pting thec om pla int’ s fa c tua l
a lle gations). W

hile a distric t c ourt “ ne e d not pre s um e the truthfulne s s of the pla i ntiff’ s a lle gations” whe n a de fe nda nt c ha lle nge s the fa c tua l grounds for subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion, SafeAir for Eve ry one v . Me y e r , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039
3(9th C ir. 2004), De fe n d ants’ c ha lle nge s to thetruth a nd a de qua c y of W ilhite ’ s a lle gations a

tta c k e d the ir m e rits—

not the c ourt’ s subje c t -m atte r jurisdic tion. III The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de c line d to dismiss W ilhite ’ s RIC O c la i m sua sponte . A c ourt m

ust providethe pla intiff with the opportunity

to submit writte n argum e nt opposing dism

issa l be fore dism issing a

n a c tion sua sponte for fa ilure to sta te a c la im
. Se e Frank

lin v . Ore gon , 662 F.2d 1337, 1340–41 (9th C ir. 1981). He re , De fe nda

nts ha d not file d a

m otion to dism

iss for fa ilure to sta

te a c la i m at the tim e of the a

ppe a le d judgm e nt, a

nd W ilhiteha d no opportunity to submit writte n opposition to dism

issa l
. IV The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to hold e vide ntia ry he arings on sc ope of e m

ploy m e nt or the a

pplic ation of Se c tion 2679(b)(2)(B ). Se e Sale h v . Bush , 848 F.3d 880, 886 (9th C ir. 2017) (sta ting sta nda rd). The re we re no re le va nt fa c tua l d i spute s. The p artie s a gre e tha t the De fe nda

nts we re a c ting within the i r e m ploy m e nt, a nd the m a gistra

te judge a ssum e d a s m

uc h in re a c hing his
c onc lusions.

4V

In sum , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the pe tition for c e rtific ation pursua nt to theW e s tfa l l Ac t. The distric t c ourt did not err, in c onside ring the pe tition a t this stage of the proc e e dings, in de c lining to c o nstrue the R IC O
a lle gations a s c om

m on-la w c la i m s, de c lining to hold a n e vide ntia ry he aring, or de c lining to s ua sponte

dism iss thec om

pla int on them e rits. On issua nc e of the
m andate , the c a se should proc e e d in thenorm a l c ourse to c onc lusion in the distric t
c ourt. AFFIRM E D.

5